Is there a nice short version of the L squared operator

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brewer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator Short
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the commutator [\hat{L}^2,\hat{L}_z] equals zero, with a focus on the angular momentum operator L squared. Participants are exploring the expressions for L squared and its components, as well as the commutation relations involved.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the need for a more compact representation of L squared, questioning whether there is a simpler way to express the operator without lengthy calculations. Some express uncertainty about how to apply the commutation relations effectively.

Discussion Status

There is ongoing exploration of the problem, with some participants suggesting the use of known commutation relations to simplify the task. Guidance has been offered on how to approach the commutator, but no consensus has been reached on a specific method or solution.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention issues with their notes and the potential for sign errors in calculations. The discussion reflects a desire for clarity in the application of commutation relations and the structure of the operators involved.

Brewer
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
This is a little bit of a weird one.

The question asks me to prove that [tex][\hat{L}^2,\hat{L}_z ][/tex] is equal to zero. I know what to do with it and how commutators work, and I know that L2 = Lx2 + Ly2 + Lz2 (where the 2 means squared) and I have expressions for Lx2, Ly2 and Lz2, but I was just wondering if there's a nice compact way of writing L2 out, as the version I'll get after adding the 3 expressions is really long and is a ridiculous amount of (albeit simple) working out, in which I'm likely to make sign errors (which I did on the previous question).

If I have to go this long winded way so be it (and I will do - just like to have something to aim at), but if it could be simplfied then I'm sure it'd be a slightly easier question.

Thanks guys
Brewer
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are no long expressions that are required for evaluating this commutator. You can presumably use the elementary commutation relations [itex][L_x,L_y]=i\hbar L_z~[/itex] etc.
 
Yes, that was the first part of the question to come up with that, but I'm not sure how you go about doing it like that. My shabby notes don't seem to be much help - they just tell me that L2 = Lx2 + Ly2 + Lz2.
 
Brewer said:
Yes, that was the first part of the question to come up with that, but I'm not sure how you go about doing it like that. My shabby notes don't seem to be much help - they just tell me that L2 = Lx2 + Ly2 + Lz2.

Well, like Gokul says, use the commutation relations. You know the form for l^2, so write out the commutator. Presumably you can then expand this and simplify using the rules of commutators that you know.

Why don't you have a go, and post what you get. Then someone will be able to point you in the right direction.
 
And you'll probably want to use something like
[AB, C] = A[B, C] + [B, C]A
(easily proved, just write it out)
 
CompuChip said:
And you'll probably want to use something like
[AB, C] = A[B, C] + [B, C]A
(easily proved, just write it out)
I think compuchip may have been typing in a bit of a hurry. That should read: [AB,C] = A[B,C] + [A,C]B
 
Hehe, obviously. My apologies.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K